The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 13 found fault with a partial import ban on fingerprint scanners, ordering the International Trade Commission to reconsider its limited exclusion orders against Suprema and Mentalix. Because of the ITC wrongly found some products infringed patents in violation of Section 337, the exclusion orders only appear to be valid for Suprema’s RealScan 10 and RealScan 10F scanners, CAFC said. The appeals court remanded for the International Trade Commission to revise the exclusion orders accordingly.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 13 affirmed the termination of an antidumping duty new shipper review of fresh garlic from China for Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export Co., in a decision that will result in Maycarrier remaining subject to the $4.71/kg AD rate for companies that aren't independent from state control. Commerce had rescinded the review because it found evidence that Maycarrier was the same entity as another Chinese exporter that had previous exports to the United States. New shipper reviews can only be requested within one year of the date of its first entry of subject merchandise, and Maycarrier’s request came beyond that date. Maycarrier tried to persuade the court that Commerce relied upon faulty evidence, but the court said Commerce’s findings were reasonable and let the rescission stand.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 13 affirmed a lower court ruling against the Commerce Department’s retroactive suspension of liquidation on entries of laminated woven sacks from China by U.S. importer AMS Associates, also known as Shapiro Packaging. Commerce’s direction that CBP “continue” to suspend liquidation on entries going back two years was in effect a retroactive suspension of liquidation during a scope ruling, which is impermissible under Commerce’s regulations, said CAFC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on Dec. 12 a lower court ruling against CBP’s imposition of nearly $38 million in penalties on Union Pacific for contraband found in Mexican trains crossing the border. CBP had imposed the penalties after finding illegal drugs on trains brought to the U.S. border by Ferrocarril Mexicano and Kansas City Southern de Mexico, even though Union Pacific didn’t control the trains until after the CBP inspections. The Nebraska U.S. District Court rejected the penalties in 2012, in part because Union Pacific had no reasonable way of preventing cartels from putting drugs on other companies’ trains. The 8th Circuit mostly agreed with the circuit court, vacating only a court order to issue regulations related to the standard of care required of common carriers.

Best Key’s challenge to CBP’s reclassification of its metallic yarn ended on a technicality, as the Court of International Trade on Dec. 13 dismissed the case because if found the Chinese yarn company has no basis to challenge CBP’s ruling. Best Key claimed the ruling would harm its business interests because reclassification as polyester instead of metallic yarn would allow CBP to collect higher duties on garments made from the yarn. But Best Key is a yarn manufacturer, and CIT found that legally Best Key is only able to challenge a ruling based on a product it would import -- the yarn itself, and not the garments made from it. The court found Best Key had no basis to challenge the reclassification, because it actually resulted in a lower duty rate for the yarn.

The Container Store on Dec. 10 filed suit at the Court of International Trade in an attempt to get CBP to follow a 2011 court ruling that classified parts for its elfa hanging modular storage system as furniture. According to the complaint, CBP headquarters instructed port officials to hold off on reliquidation of entries covered under the court ruling. The agency also refused to concede defeat in other lawsuits covering the same product, because it apparently still believes the elfa top tracks and hanging standards should be classified as metal mountings despite CIT’s decision, the complaint said.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 6 refused to dismiss a challenge to high antidumping duty rates imposed on merchandise from a Chinese exporter of steel nails. In the 2010-11 administrative review of steel nails from China, the Commerce Department had assigned Suntec Industries the 118.04% “China-wide” rate, because the company didn’t file paperwork to show it was independent from state control. But Suntec argued it never got the chance because the petitioners that requested the review never served the company with notice. As a result, Suntec said it didn’t learn of the review until days before it was completed in March 2013.

A Florida antiques dealer pleaded guilty Dec. 4 to obstruction of justice related to the submission of false invoices to avoid a CBP penalty proceeding for the illegal importation of Chinese art. Francis Lorin and his company Lorin & Son, which does business as Asiantiques, admitted to illegally importing ancient Chinese artifacts without the required permission, then submitting fraudulent invoices to CBP during the ensuing investigation.

The Court of International Trade denied an importer’s challenge to CBP’s tariff classification of its valve motors for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Belimo Automation said a microchip added to the electric motors that allows for some independent action means the product is classifiable as a regulating and controlling instrument. But the court affirmed CBP’s finding that the product is still an electric motor because it doesn’t measure the variable it’s regulating.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 6 affirmed a lower court ruling that found parts Samsung used in its plasma screen televisions rendered the merchandise ineligible for NAFTA duty-free treatment. The Court of International Trade had in November 2012 found the plasma display panel modules, included in plasma TVs Samsung imported from Mexico, to be “flat panel screen assemblies” (see 12112332). Flat panel screen assemblies can’t become NAFTA-eligible through any tariff shift rule. Because the plasma display panel modules were made in South Korea, CIT’s decision rendered them ineligible for NAFTA duty-free treatment. CAFC said it adopted the reasoning of CIT “in all respects,” and affirmed.